NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/1968

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 9.2 KB

Path: niccolo.gsfc.nasa.gov!payter
From: [e-mail] (Payter Versteegen)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite.tvro,rec.video.satellite.misc,rec.video.production,comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.dcom.lans.misc,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Starting a Cable Network
Date: 18 Jan 1996 21:43:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Message-ID: <4dmeuj$[e-mail]>
References: <4dbvf9$[e-mail]> <4delcb$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: niccolo.gsfc.nasa.gov


Fred Chateau <[e-mail]>, ranted:
* Payter Versteegen wrote:
* > Sam Ifergan <[e-mail]> wrote:
* > >I am interested in starting a Cable Network in the US. Can somebody
* > >direct me towards a contact or literature that will help me to
* > >understand the critical issues?
* >
* > Investors, please look at http://192.86.20.177/, or send me mail.
*
* WHAT A DISGUSTING WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!      <g>
*
* I looked over your fantasy projects on the Web . . .
*
* That's all we need is NASA getting in the cable TV business. What's the
* matter? Didn't you spend enough money on space last year, or have you got
* so much left over you can afford this crap . . .
*
    Woah, there, Trigger!  Looks like you and I are talking about two
*very* different things.  Add to that the fact that you mentioned that
you looked at our web site, yet *still* continued to rant, shows that
you made less than a minimal effort to understand me.  I will now make
my effort to understand you.

    It is [should be] obvious that *I* interpreted "Network" in the
computer sense (as in TCP/IP, the network *created* by the US government,
and the same network which brings to each of us all your passionate concerns
*about* the US government), and not in the Entertainment-conglomerate (CBS,
NBC, ABC, UPN, Fox, Turner, etc) sense.  At least, it would be obvious
to anyone capable of comprehending the contents of the Web page in question;
<http://192.86.20.177/>.


* Didn't anyone tell you people that we don't want the government
* interfering in the private sector? Has it occurred to you that there are
* several competing technologies ready-to-roll out there, and when you put
* the name and weight of NASA behind a particular technology, as if you had
* some clue as to what you are talking about (and you don't!), you risk
* tilting the balance and moving us in the wrong direction, not to mention
* the total waste of the taxpayer's money involved . . .
*
    While I personally share your rather Libertarian views regarding the
relationship between the Federal Government and Private Enterprise, your
blind assumption about NASA's technological foundries being misplaced
is a rather bold statement, indeed.  Technologies such as the Consultative
Commitee on Science Data Standards (CCSDS) Panel 2's Standard Format Data
Unit (SFDU), which defines data-representation standards for the global
scientific community, is heavily backed and developed by NASA.  Development
of software to that standard is currently being delivered *only* by NASA,
and by no other scientific organization in the civilized world.


* Has it occurred to you that you're backing the WRONG technology ? ? ?
*
* LET PRIVATE ENTERPRIZE WORK THIS OUT AND STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT ! ! !
*
* I have been listening to clowns describe Internet television projects for
* three years now, and not one of them is remotely obtainable. Sure, you
* can spend millions of dollars and wire up a neighboor to do anything, but
* none of these projects are anywhere close to being financially feasible.
* They are all black holes for investors to dump money into, and everytime
* an investor looses his money in these things it makes it that much harder
* to go forward with a real, attainable plan.
*
    This is where your ignorance really shines.  Check out the web page,
again <http://192.86.20.177/> and *read* it this time.

    IT'S ABOUT INTERNET ACCESS VIA CABLE TV WIRES!

    Not interactive television.  Not TV over the Internet.  Maybe, on a few
of the effected newsgroups, the term "Cable Network" has a different meaning
for me than it does for you (well, obviously).  *I* humbly apologize for
my misinterpretation of the term, but, to my defense, my article was posted
to the "comp.dcom.lans.misc" and "comp.dcom.lans.modems" newsgroups, and
[for which I am apologizing] "rec.video.cable-tv."  Oh, and in the US,
"enterprise" is spelled with an "S."


* If you want to see the future of interactive television, go to
* http://www.intercast.org/ and take a look at the only offering available
* that isn't being designed by engineers and marketers with their heads in
* the clouds.
*
    I took a look at Intercasts' site, and it seems that there are some
really cool ideas going on over there.  Ideas completely independent
of that on which I am working.  You're turning a PC into a smart TV,
and I'm turning cable-tv wires into a [digital] network medium.
    The rest of the letter (quoted farther below for thoroughness) goes
on vaguely to boast about Intercast's "panacea" for some impending
"interactive revolution in telecommunications." (Aren't all revolutions
interactive?)  These last few lines, though,

*
* So get a life . . .     Get a job . . .     Get off the government
* payroll . . .     And get out of the way . . .     <g>     Please . . .
*

give away the fact that you wrote a letter out of anger.  Don't think
that the little <g>rins magically transform your sardonicism into sarcasm;
the tone of the entire reply belies that.  The fact is that you jumped the
gun, and you probably need to follow some [if not all] of your own advice.

    L8r, P8r.
    [e-mail]

=;)
----------------------------------------------------------------
    What follows is the rest of Fred's rant.

* Mark these words well: 1996 will come to be know as the beginning of an
* interactive revolution in telecommunications because of the Intercast
* technology.
*
* In fact, this technology is so ripe and powerful, it will have the same
* effect on broadcast television today that the introduction of color
* television had in the fifties, although it will promulgate much faster
* because of modern production techniques combined with the extraordinarily
* insignificant cost of implementing the project on a national scale, due
* to the fact that it utilizes existing infrastructure.
*
* That, by the way, is also why so many educated, informed people have
* missed the boat on this. We've got a multitude of engineers following the
* digital revolution like lemmings, and none of them will even take the
* time to consider an analog solution, but then they just build them, they
* don't pay for them, do they?    <g>
*
* Now that is only the beginning . . .
*
* The broadcasters are so throughly intimidated by the Internet they have
* been wetting their pants worrying about what is gonna happen there.
*
* The cable companies think that their day is coming and that soon now
* they'll be replacing the broadcasters, telephone companies, and everyone
* else out there, but they can't even keep track of their own billing,
* answer their own phones, or keep their present equipment working
* properly.
*
* On the other hand, the telephone companies understand the requirements
* necessary to bring about this digital communications revolution, and they
* are preparing themselves to implement it. Unfortunately, it will require
* a rate increase to about $500/month for every American's telephone bill.
*
* Well, the two nicest things about Intercast is that it places the control
* (and the power) back squarely in the hands of the television
* broadcasters, networks, and program originators. Whatever complaints I
* may have against the the broadcast television industry, there isn't
* anyone else out there qualified to handle it as well. Now, when the
* broadcasters find out they're not loosing control over their medium with
* Intercast, do you think they'll respond aggressively?
*
* And what about the public? For years we've been trying to introduce
* television to the Internet. What we have is slow-scan TV and live radio
* that sounds almost as good as the telephone, not to mention the fact that
* a sizable portion of the public is thoroughly intimidated by this
* computer technology anyway. Do you think the public might take better to
* a system that brings the Internet to TV rather than the other way around?
*
* I think they will be enamored with it. After being promised for several
* years a technology that doesn't exist, they will be able to interact in a
* confortable way with their regular television programs, using controls
* and operating procedures familiar to them.
*
* It is in the public interest? Is sensible affordability in the public
* interest? No one company stands to overly profit by this technology.
* There is nothing magical about inserting data bits in the NTSC vertical
* blanking pulse. Broadcast test equipment and close-captioning systems
* have been doing it for years. In fact, if anyone should attempt to force
* a patent or copyright on Intercast, the Justice Department should
* definitely take a close look at that.
*
* So get a life . . .     Get a job . . .     Get off the government
* payroll . . .     And get out of the way . . .     <g>     Please . . .
*